* A change to the Eclipse Software User Agreement is coming ({{bug|316152}}). It is recommended that you adopt the new PDE [http://relengofthenerds.blogspot.com/2011/01/implementing-shared-licenses-with-37m5.html license feature support] so you can more easily adapt to license changes. You can simply refer to the license feature defined by the Eclipse top-level project, which will be updated whenever the SUA changes. You should wait for {{bug|316152}} to be resolved before switching.

== Maintenance Schedule ==

== Maintenance Schedule ==

Line 157:

Line 157:

For detailed RC schedules, see [[Helios_Simultaneous_Release#Service_Releases| Service Release Schedule in master plan]]

For detailed RC schedules, see [[Helios_Simultaneous_Release#Service_Releases| Service Release Schedule in master plan]]

−

* RC2 is this week ... release is later this month ... any issues?

+

* RC2 is this week ... release is later this month ... any issues?

+

+

:'' No issues raised''

== Indigo Status ==

== Indigo Status ==

* M5 this week ... any issues?

* M5 this week ... any issues?

+

+

: ''Pascal mentioned a new build of market-place client is needed for M5 due to some p2 (internal) changes.''

* any exceptions to discuss?

* any exceptions to discuss?

+

+

: ''No exceptions were specifically approved at this meeting, but we discussed some that will be requested for M6:''

+

:: ''Libra. Provisioned. Building (just for day or two). Plans to release as incubating subproject of WTP. Kaloyan to prepare pages, information about project, and he (and WTP) will come back with costs and benefits explanations when requesting the exception.''

+

:: ''WindowBuilder. Just provisioned. Still CQ work to do. (Wayne was optimistic, but ... less certainty that it can get going in time).''

* Should we provide (whole) Orbit Repository as a "runtime target" category? Should it be a "trusted repo"? See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=310578#c11

+

+

:''To summarize discussion: It was thought this was not a good time. Maybe next release? There was no insurmountable problems known, but many questions, that should be discussed widely, and over time, to make sure we were not setting a precedent we couldn't support. Such as, this is a "change in philosophy" for the common repo. Until now it has been oriented towards end-user function, and just last year, runtime targets (which is more for committers or extenders) but still function/feature oriented. So, do we want to be/provide such a general purpose 'common bundle repository'. Should we wait till Orbit provides "one repo for all time" repository of bundles, or change every release. Currently Orbit itself does not "release" in the normal Eclipse sense, the bundles it provides do via being included in other projects, but seems if we had a common repo, it should have it's own "release review". (In fact, due to history and evolution, there are bundles still produced by Orbit that are not released in any specific yearly release, as an Eclipse Project does not release with it included). Would this lead to Eclipse projects not "including" a bundle in their distribution, and just relying on the common repo for p2 to find it? And ... would this be a good or bad thing? Currently, PC members had not seen many problems or difficulties in this area, so some question about "what problem are we solving" and while everyone could imagine it'd be a little usability improvement, over users having to add the Orbit repo URL themselves, didn't seem worth solving right now with so many questions. In fact, even lead to one question of is a valid solution would be just to provide the URL "pre-populated" with some of the standard or common distributions, such as from EPP). While not certain, it may be that Orbit can not be part of an operation where a user says "install everything" ... that is, some known, unavoidable conflicts. While there are certainly fixes or ways around this ... it is work someone would have to do. So, did not rule out the concept for all time ... but, more work needed. I'll update the bugzilla with this summary.

+

+

* recently [http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse.org-planning-council/msg01860.html announced EMO dates for Indigo release]: (I have added these to our [https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=gchs7nm4nvpm837469ddj9tjlk@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York&gsessionid=OK Planning Calendar] for convenience).

* '''Was there a note for this item?''' Wayne teased us all with promise of new tools to check CQs against downloads, which we projects can use ourselves ... but he wasn't ready to tell us about them today and he'll be saying more over next few days or weeks.

+

:: ''Progress, but slow. Wayne still working with individual projects that have not provided one (and maybe didn't even know they needed one ... so, sounds like some PMC/mentoring guidance needed?).''

:: ''Wayne would like to "extend" the meaning and use of some fields in project meta-data so there projects could summarize their release, etc., instead of sending email or making part of docuware''. More could be automated then. Overall summaries provided, etc. Wayne will (likely) send note to cross-project soon with this request.''

* New [http://www.eclipse.org/projects/tools/ project release tools]. Some ready. Some near ready? (Wayne)

−

: A contributor (Hendy.rainbowpurple.com) added these for Eclipse project to [[Indigo| Indigo Wiki Page]] ... but, shouldn't we have central page, with potential for each project to add links to their plans, migration guides, and N&N? Is there a better way?

+

+

:: ''Sounds like Wayne's made some excellent tools to ease and improve the quality of the process. He'll be posting more notes soon (approximately Friday). ''

Inactive

?

Nokia (Strategic Developer)

X

?

CA Inc. (Strategic Consumer)

X

?

brox IT-Solutions GmbH (Strategic Developer)

X

Note: "Inactive" refers to Strategic Members we have not heard from in a year or so, and have been unable to convince to participate. Those members can become active again at any time. Contact David Williams if questions.

Announcements

A change to the Eclipse Software User Agreement is coming (bug 316152). It is recommended that you adopt the new PDE license feature support so you can more easily adapt to license changes. You can simply refer to the license feature defined by the Eclipse top-level project, which will be updated whenever the SUA changes. You should wait for bug 316152 to be resolved before switching.

Indigo Status

Pascal mentioned a new build of market-place client is needed for M5 due to some p2 (internal) changes.

any exceptions to discuss?

No exceptions were specifically approved at this meeting, but we discussed some that will be requested for M6:

Libra. Provisioned. Building (just for day or two). Plans to release as incubating subproject of WTP. Kaloyan to prepare pages, information about project, and he (and WTP) will come back with costs and benefits explanations when requesting the exception.

WindowBuilder. Just provisioned. Still CQ work to do. (Wayne was optimistic, but ... less certainty that it can get going in time).

RAT: Not yet provisioned, nor had creation review. Wayne to followup with them.

Indigo Plan and Schedule

To summarize discussion: It was thought this was not a good time. Maybe next release? There was no insurmountable problems known, but many questions, that should be discussed widely, and over time, to make sure we were not setting a precedent we couldn't support. Such as, this is a "change in philosophy" for the common repo. Until now it has been oriented towards end-user function, and just last year, runtime targets (which is more for committers or extenders) but still function/feature oriented. So, do we want to be/provide such a general purpose 'common bundle repository'. Should we wait till Orbit provides "one repo for all time" repository of bundles, or change every release. Currently Orbit itself does not "release" in the normal Eclipse sense, the bundles it provides do via being included in other projects, but seems if we had a common repo, it should have it's own "release review". (In fact, due to history and evolution, there are bundles still produced by Orbit that are not released in any specific yearly release, as an Eclipse Project does not release with it included). Would this lead to Eclipse projects not "including" a bundle in their distribution, and just relying on the common repo for p2 to find it? And ... would this be a good or bad thing? Currently, PC members had not seen many problems or difficulties in this area, so some question about "what problem are we solving" and while everyone could imagine it'd be a little usability improvement, over users having to add the Orbit repo URL themselves, didn't seem worth solving right now with so many questions. In fact, even lead to one question of is a valid solution would be just to provide the URL "pre-populated" with some of the standard or common distributions, such as from EPP). While not certain, it may be that Orbit can not be part of an operation where a user says "install everything" ... that is, some known, unavoidable conflicts. While there are certainly fixes or ways around this ... it is work someone would have to do. So, did not rule out the concept for all time ... but, more work needed. I'll update the bugzilla with this summary.

ToDo Items

Progress, but slow. Wayne still working with individual projects that have not provided one (and maybe didn't even know they needed one ... so, sounds like some PMC/mentoring guidance needed?).

Wayne would like to "extend" the meaning and use of some fields in project meta-data so there projects could summarize their release, etc., instead of sending email or making part of docuware. More could be automated then. Overall summaries provided, etc. Wayne will (likely) send note to cross-project soon with this request.